Richard, you are a riot! How you get an endorsement from that comment is beyond me. Especially when I am quite explicit in my response to Alex about what I agree with and do not, as you have obviously read.

But then how you get to oppressing free speech from trying to encourage conversation is beyond me too…

It’s almost like you’re trying to put words in mouth so I’m going to try to explain my position in as plain terms as I can. Please do not try to read too much into this. And please refrain from trying to interpret my comments for others. I think they are plain enough.

I am not saying anything about the annual weighting. I think it’s incompatible with your assumptions on deferred tax, but I suggest we park that issue because you are obviously getting mixed up between the two problems.

I am only talking about your “sum of the digits” method.

I was merely pointing out one fix to one aspect of your method. That would solve the mathematical error you have made, which is the same one you made in your tax gap calculations – calculating the sum of the means rather than the mean of the sums.

You are currently making no attempt to justify that choice. If you could justify it, you should have done so.

Otherwise, I imagine, your only option is to try to argue the man rather than the argument.

I know it is a little patronising, but really what can you do when somebody is trying to argue black is white?